DOCSLIB.ORG

Control of Common Groundsel in Florida Container Nurseries 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Control of Common Groundsel in Florida Container Nurseries 1 Archival copy: for current recommendations see http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu or your local extension office. ENH980 Control of Common Groundsel in Florida Container Nurseries 1 Alejandro Bolques, Jeffrey G. Norcini, James Aldrich, Courtney E. Gist2 Description Common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.) is a weed that needs to be monitored year-round in container nurseries since these conditions are ideal for common groundsel. Seed can germinate only a few days after they land on the container medium surface (Figure 1). If left uncontrolled, plants will grow up to 18 inches tall with multiple flowering stalks (Figure 2). Flowers are tubular in shape and seeds are tipped with a tuft of silky white hairs (Figure 3). Under Florida container nursery conditions, the whole life Figure 1. Common groundsel seedling. Credits: James cycle — from seed germination to flowering and seed Altland, Oregon State University, North Willamette set — can occur in as little as 6 weeks. Research and Extension Center, Aurora. Common groundsel has only been officially groundsel as its ocurrence is probably more reported in Escambia, Gadsden, and Lake Counties, widespread. but anyone in Florida producing containerized ornamentals should be on the lookout for common 1. This document is ENH980, one of a series of the Environmental Horticulture Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Original publication date September 2004. Visit the EDIS Web Site at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu. 2. Alejandro Bolques, Horticulture Extension Agent, Florida A&M University College of Engineering Sciences, Technology and Agriculture, Cooperative Extension and Outreach Programs, Quincy, Florida 32351; Jeffrey G. Norcini, Associate Professor, native wildflower specialist, and James H. Aldrich, Senior Biological Scientist, North Florida Research & Education Center, Quincy, FL 32351; Courtney E. Gist, Extension Intern, Gadsden County Cooperative Extension Service. The use of trade names in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information. UF/IFAS does not guarantee or warranty the products named, and references to them in this publication does not signify our approval to the exclusion of other products of suitable composition. All chemicals should be used in accordance with directions on the manufacturer's label. Use pesticides safely. Read and follow directions on the manufacturer's label. The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A. & M. University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Larry Arrington, Dean Archival copy: for current recommendations see http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu or your local extension office. Control of Common Groundsel in Florida Container Nurseries 2 measures are not taken to control it. We describe below some methods to control this weed. Sanitation. Check for common groundsel during your scouting routine for insects and diseases. Eliminate infestations on bed perimeters, in aisles, and on the perimeter of the nursery. Since common groundsel can be biennial, use a postemergence herbicide that is nonselective and translocated throughout the plant to ensure that the roots are killed. If the roots are not killed, the shoots will resprout. In general, use an herbicide that contains either glyphosate (for example, Roundup® ) or glufosinate (Finale®) as the only active ingredient since some products contain other active ingredients not suitable for use in container nurseries. Exceptions to this rule are specially formulated products like QuikPRO™ Herbicide (glyphosate + diquat) that are labeled for control of groundsel. For long-term control, tank mix a labeled preemergence herbicide that is compatible with the postmergence herbicide. Some preemergence herbicides labeled for control of groundsel are listed in Table 1; however, check the postemergence and preemergence herbicide labels to determine if they can be tank mixed and used in your Figure 2. Typical appearance of mature common situation. Reapply a preemergence herbicide as groundsel. Credits: Susan Aldrich-Markham, Oregon State needed according to label guidelines. University Extension Service, McMinnville. Do not mow or use a string trimmer to eliminate plants that have flowered as you probably will spread more seed. When crops are repotted or being brought into the nursery for the first time, carefully check for and remove common groundsel plants and seedlings. If the common groundsel in a pot has seedheads, repot the plant in fresh medium that is free of weed seeds. Apply a preemergence herbicide and irrigate the plants to activate the herbicide and form a protective barrier on the medium surface. Preemergence Herbicides for Container Crops. An integrated approach of sanitation plus the Figure 3. Closeup of common groundsel flowers and seedhead. Credits: Susan Aldrich-Markham, Oregon State use of preemergence herbicides should prevent any University Extension Service, McMinnville. significant infestations of common groundsel. There are several preemergence herbicides labeled for Control control of common groundsel or groundsel species in general. Since seeds are easily spread by wind and each plant can produce about a million seeds, common In 2002, we evaluated several of these herbicides groundsel can spread quickly throughout a nursery if under container nursery conditions (Table 1) (Bolques et. al, 2003). One day prior to herbicide Archival copy: for current recommendations see http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu or your local extension office. Control of Common Groundsel in Florida Container Nurseries 3 application in late May, 50 common groundsel seeds Postmergence Herbicides for Container Crops. were spread evenly over individual 1-gallon Common groundsel that has infested containers containers filled with 80:10:10, pine bark:peat:sand probably will have to be removed manually. Goal® (by vol.) amended with 13-6-6 sludge (Graco 2XL is labeled for postemergence control of common Fertilizer, Cairo, GA). Seeds were derived from groundsel (< 4 inches tall) for only a very limited plants found at a Gadsden County container nursery. number of container-grown, coniferous species. We Four single-pot replications per herbicide treatment are not aware of any other postemergence herbicide were randomly arranged on a full sun bed. Number labeled for control of common groundsel in of common groundsel in each pot were counted 2, 4, container-grown ornamentals. and 12 weeks after the herbicdes were applied. Nonherbicide-treated pots served as controls. Conclusion. To prevent common groundsel infestation, use good exclusion and sanitation Gallery™, Princep®, and Snapshot™ TG practices augmented with preemergence herbicides. provided the best control of common groundsel throughout the study. By 4 weeks after treatment, Literature Cited 100% control was observed in all pots treated with Bolques, A., J.G. Norcini, and J.H. Aldrich. these herbicides; 100% control was also observed at 2003. Preemergent control of common groundsel 12 weeks (Table 1). Moreover, there were never (Senecio vulgaris). Proc. Southern Nursery Assoc. more than two seedlings in any pot treated with these Res. Conf. 48:333-336. herbicides, and none of them flowered. Ronstar® 2G clearly provided the least control (62% to 76%). Gallitano, L.B. and W.A. Skroch. 1993. Most other herbicides provided at least 90% control Herbicide efficacy for production of container by 4 weeks after application and maintained that level ornamentals. Weed Tech. 7:103-111. of control another 8 weeks. The only exception was Ronstar® 50WP which provided 80% control at 4 Holliday, R.J. and P.D. Putwain. 1977. Evolution weeks and 84% control at 12 weeks. Gallitano and of resistance to simazine in Senecio vulgaris L. Weed Skroch (1993) reported 100% groundsel control with Res. 17:291-296. Gallery™ nearly 29 weeks after application but slightly better control of groundsel than we observed Holliday, R.J. and P.D. Putwain. 1980. Evolution with Rout® and OH-II®, and even better control with of herbicide resistance in Senecio vulgaris L: Ronstar® 2G. In their experiment, Ronstar® 2G Variation in susceptibility to simazine between and provided 100% control at 29 weeks. within populations. J. Appl. Ecol. 17:770-791. Despite substantial reductions in number of Kadereit, J.W. and D. Briggs. 1985. Speed of groundsel in our herbicide-treated pots, many of the development of radiate and non-radiate plants of groundsel in those pots flowered. Moreover, we Senecio vulgaris L. from habitats subject to different observed that common groundsel seed could mature degrees of weeding pressure. New Phytol. soon after flowering, spread easily by air currents, and 99:155-169. germinate within a few days after settling in pots. Theaker, A.J. and D. Briggs. 1993. Relatively rapid development (germination to mature Genecological studies of groundsel (Senecio vulgaris seed) under container production conditions seems to L.). IV. Rate of development in plants from different be characteristic of at least some populations of habitat
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 9-17-2018 Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park" (2018). Botanical Studies. 85. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/85 This Flora of Northwest California-Checklists of Local Sites is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE REDWOOD NATIONAL & STATE PARKS James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State Univerity Arcata, California 14 September 2018 The Redwood National and State Parks are located in Del Norte and Humboldt counties in coastal northwestern California. The national park was F E R N S established in 1968. In 1994, a cooperative agreement with the California Department of Parks and Recreation added Del Norte Coast, Prairie Creek, Athyriaceae – Lady Fern Family and Jedediah Smith Redwoods state parks to form a single administrative Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosporum • northwestern lady fern unit. Together they comprise about 133,000 acres (540 km2), including 37 miles of coast line. Almost half of the remaining old growth redwood forests Blechnaceae – Deer Fern Family are protected in these four parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C Plant and Animal Species Observed
    Appendix C Plant and Animal Species Observed This list includes vascular plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians observed in the BSA by biologists during various surveys in 2005 and 2006. This list does not include invertebrate species. Invertebrates that would be most commonly encountered on the site would include butterflies, flies, dragonflies, damselflies, beetles, earwigs, grasshoppers, crickets, termites, true bugs, mantids, lacewings, bees, wasps, ants, and spiders. PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED Scientific Name Common Name Invasive Plant Rating CLUB AND SPIKE MOSSES Selaginellaceae Spike moss family Selaginella cinerascens Mesa spikemoss TRUE FERNS Azollaceae Mosquito fern family Azolla filiculoides Pacific mosquito fern Marsileaceae Marsilea family Marsilea vestita Hairy waterclover Pilularia americana American pillwort Pteridaceae Lip fern family Pellaea andromedifolia Coffee fern Pentagramma triangularis Goldenback fern PINOPHYTA GYMNOSPERMS Cupressaceace Cypress family Juniperus californica California juniper DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS Aizoaceae Carpet weed family Carpobrotus edulis* Hottentot-fig HIGH Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum* Slender-leaved ice plant Trianthema portulacastrum Horse-purslane Amaranthaceae Amaranth family Amaranthus albus* Tumbling pigweed Amaranthus palmeri Palmer’s pigweed Amaranthus sp. Pigweed Anacardiaceae Sumac family Malosma laurina Laurel sumac Rhus ovata Sugar bush Rhus trilobata Skunkbush sumac Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper tree LIMITED Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian pepper tree LIMITED Mid
    [Show full text]
  • Poisonous Weeds and Toxic Factors in Hay Crops
    Poisonous Weeds And Toxic Factors In Hay Crops: Why You Should Worry Birgit Puschner Veterinary Toxicologist [email protected] School of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis Overview of Today’s Talk • When to suspect a poisoning • Toxic plants: • Nitrate accumulators • Pyrrolizidine alkaloids • Oleander • Grasses that cause mechanical irritation Factors Contributing to Poisoning • Animal • Plant • Sensitive species • Palatable? • Adaptation to tolerate • Right time of the year? toxic plants is possible à concentrations of • What other feed is toxins vary with season available? • Does the plant remain • Unable to avoid toxic toxic when dried? plant (i.e. in hay cubes) Resources • Textbooks: • A Guide to Plant Poisoning of Animals in North America: by A.P. Knight and R.G. Walter, 1st edition, 2001. Teton NewMedia. www.tetonnm.com • UCANR publication: http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8398.pdf Detailed publication on Livestock-poisoning Plants of California (link on CERE under Lab resources) • Websites (with images and location) • https://www.ars.usda.gov/pacific-west- area/logan-ut/poisonous-plant- research/docs/poisonous-plants-by-toxic- syndrome/ • http://plants.usda.gov/about_plants.html Nitrate/Nitrite Accumulators • Sorghum spp (Sudan grass, Johnson grass) • Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) • Lamb’s-quarters (Chenopodium album) • Alfalfa, oat, corn, nightshades (Solanum) Chenopodium album Pigweed Johnson grass Sudan grass Orchard Grass Hay 5,900 ppm Nitrate Pigweed Sudan Hay 18,800 ppm Nitrate Amaranthus retroflexus Nitrate/Nitrite – Mechanism • Only ruminants and pseudoruminants are susceptible • Nitrate in plants à converted to toxic nitrite • Nitrite à methemoglobin • Methemoglobin: incapable of Oxygen transport à Anoxia NO3/NO2 – Clinical signs • Acute syndrome: – Onset within 1/2 - 4 hours after feeding – GI irritation, difficulty breathing, tremors, ataxia – Rapid, weak heart beat – Convulsions, death in 6 - 24 hours – Abortions, esp.
    [Show full text]
  • BSBI News Index 121-130 ABC 8Pt FINAL
    BSBI News INDEX to Nos 121 – 130 September 2012 to September 2015 Compiled by GWYNN ELLIS ISSN 2397-8813 1 GUIDE TO THE INDEX ABBREVIATIONS AEM Annual Exhibition Meeting Illus. Illustration AGM Annual General Meeting Infl. Inflorescence ASM Annual Summer Meeting Lvs Leaves cf. confer (compare) photo © photo copyright holder congrats congratulations Rev. Review CS Colour Section Rpt Report del. delineavit (drawn) s.l. sensu lato (broad sense) Descr. Description s.s. sensu stricto (narrow sense) Diag. Diagram v.c. vice-county Exbn Exhibition v.cc. vice-counties Exbt Exhibit (♀) female parent Fld Mtg Rpt Field Meeting Report (♂) male parent Fls Flowers ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The compiler wishes to thank David Pearman for much helpful advice and for scrutinising the final text. However, responsibility for checking the index and its final form rests solely with the compiler. BOOKS et al. are italicised as are Periodicals and scientific names COLOUR PAGES: In the index all colour page numbers are distinguished by being underlined with the cover pages enclosed in square brackets [ ]. The front cover and inside front cover are numbered [i] and [ii] respectively while the inside back and back cover pages are numbered according to the number of pages, thus with an issue of 76 pages the inside back cover is [77] and the back cover [78]. Colour Section plates are numbered CS1, CS2, CS3, CS4. Photographers are now indexed by name with the qualification (photo ©) COMPILATION: Using the original text on computer, the entries for each issue were generated by deleting all unwanted text. After checking, the entries were then sorted into alphabetical order, condensed, and finally output as pdf files for the Printer.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX A—CHECKLIST of VASCULAR PLANTS Observed in the Vicinity of Sheffield
    PLANTS CHECKLIST APPENDIX A—CHECKLIST OF VASCULAR PLANTS Observed in the Vicinity of Sheffield COMMON NAME ORIGIN HORSETAILS HORSETAILS (Family Equisetaceae) ❏ Equisetum arvense field horsetail N ❏ Equisetum hyemale tall scouring-rush N FERNS ADDER’S-TONGUES (Family Ophioglossaceae) ❏ Botrychium multifidum leathery grape fern N (E) ROYAL FERNS (Family Osmundaceae) ❏ Osmunda regalis royal fern N HAY-SCENTED (Family Dennstaedtiaceae) ❏ Dennstaedtia punctilobula hay-scented fern N SPLEENWORTS (Family Aspleniaceae) ❏ Asplenium platyneuron ebony spleenwort N WOOD FERNS (Family Dryopteridaceae) ❏ Cystopteris fragilis brittle fern or fragile fern N (X) ❏ Cystopteris protrusa lowland fragile fern N ❏ Dryopteris marginalis leathery wood fern N ❏ Matteuccia struthiopteris ostrich fern N ❏ Onoclea sensibilis sensitive fern N ❏ Polystichum acrostichoides Christmas fern N GYNOSPERMS (GINKGOS & CONIFERS) GINKGOS (Family Ginkgoaceae) ❏ Ginkgo biloba ginkgo or maidenhair tree C PINES (Family Pinaceae) ❏ Picea glauca conica dwarf Alberta spruce C ❏ Picea pungens gluca blue spruce C ❏ Pinus nigra Austrian pine C ❏ Pinus strobus eastern white pine N ❏ Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir C ❏ Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock N CYPRESSES (Family Cupressaceae) ❏ Juniperus virginiana eastern red-cedar N ❏ Thuja occidentalis arbor vitae N YEWS (Family Taxaceae) ❏ Taxus canadensis Canada yew N ANGIOSPERMS (FLOWERING PLANTS) DICOTYLEDONS (CLASS MAGNOLIOPSIDA) MAGNOLIAS (Family Magnoliaceae) ❏ Liriodendron tulipifera tulip-tree or tulip-poplar N ❏ Magnolia acuminata
    [Show full text]
  • Common Groundsel Senecio Vulgaris L
    PNW 466 • July 1994 Common Groundsel Senecio vulgaris L. S. Aldrich-Markham C ommon groundsel, native to Europe, is now common throughout the temperate re- gions of the world. It is wide- spread in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, but most common west of the Cascade Mountains. This weed is found in many crops, including forages, cere- als, mint, berries, and row crops, as well as in ornamentals and vegetable gardens. Groundsel is especially a problem in forage crops be- cause it is toxic to livestock. The toxins are four pyrrolizidine alkaloids, which cause irrevers- ible liver damage. Some of the same alkaloids are found in tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobea L.), but tansy ragwort also con- tains two additional alkaloids that are more toxic. Poisoning occurs most com- monly in situations where ani- mals cannot separate out the toxic plants—when they are mixed with the forage in a pas- ture, or when they are fed in hay or silage. The liver disease is chronic and progressive, re- sulting in death months later in most animals, with few or no Susan Aldrich-Markham, Extension agent, Yamhill County, Oregon State University. Figure 1.—Common groundsel grows from 4 to 18 inches tall. Leaves are deeply lobed with toothed margins. The lower stems and undersides of basal leaves usually are purplish-colored. A Pacific Northwest Extension Publication • Oregon • Idaho • Washington symptoms until 2 or 3 days be- hairy or woolly. Leaves have the base of the plant, becoming fore death. little or no leaf stalk, and are increasingly smaller toward the A lethal amount for cattle or arranged along the stem in a top.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Basis of Speed of Development in Senecio Vulgaris L
    Heredity 77 (1996) 544—554 Received 19 January 1996 Genetic basis of speed of development in Senecio vulgaris L. var. vulgaris, S. vulgaris ssp. denticulatus (O.F. Muell.) P.D. Sell, and Senecio vernalis Waldst. & Kit. HANS PETER COMES* & JOACHIM W. KADEREIT Institut für Spezielle Botanik u. Botanischer Garten, Johannes Gutenberg-Universitat Mainz, Bentze/weg 9, 55099 Mainz, Germany Thegenetic basis of differences in speed of development from germination to first bud formation was investigated in Senecio vulgaris var. vulgaris and S. vulgaris ssp. denticulatus, and also in S. vernalis sampled from Israel and Germany. In the case of S. vulgaris, F2 segregation analysis and the recovery of very late and very early lines from extreme F2 phenotypes showed that differences can be explained by a single major gene model, whereas segregation data from F2 and backcross progenies in S. vernalis are not incompatible with a digenic model of inheritance. Senecio vernalis from Israel and S. vulgaris var. vulgaris reached the different developmental stages in a substantially shorter time than did C. European S. vemalis and S. vulgaris ssp. denticulatus. In both species the increased speed of development was achieved through drastic abbreviation of the rosette stage of development rather than through an acceleration of the entire developmental programme. It is suggested that the genes controlling speed of development in S. vulgaris and S. vemalis may be homologous to major heterochronic genes identified from mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana (e.g. early flowering [elfl—3]). Keywords:earlyflowering mutants, genetic basis, life history trait, Senecio vemalis, Senecio vulgaris, speed of development. Introduction required for development from germination to first flower bud formation, anthesis, and fruiting.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Spread of Non-Native Plants in Alaska Accelerating?
    Meeting the Challenge: Invasive Plants in Pacific Northwest Ecosystems IS THE SPREAD OF NON-NATIVE PLANTS IN ALASKA ACCELERATING? Matthew L. Carlson1 and Michael Shephard2 ABSTRACT Alaska has remained relatively unaffected by non-native plants; however, recently the state has started to experience an influx of invasive non-native plants that the rest of the U.S. underwent 60–100 years ago. With the increase in population, gardening, development, and commerce there have been more frequent introductions to Alaska. Many of these species, such as meadow hawkweed (Hieracium caespitosum), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii), have only localized populations in Alaska. Other species such as reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and white sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), both formerly used in roadside seed mixes, are now very widespread and are moving into riparian areas and wetlands. We review the available literature and Alaska’s statewide invasive plant database (AKEPIC, Alaska Exotic Plant Clearinghouse) to summarize changes in Alaska’s non-native flora over the last 65 years. We suggest that Alaska is not immune to invasion, but rather that the exponential increase in non-native plants experienced else- where is delayed by a half century. This review highlights the need for more intensive detection and rapid response work if Alaska is going to remain free of many of the invasive species problems that plague the contiguous U.S. KEYWORDS: Alaska, invasion patterns, invasive plants, non-native plants, plant databases. INTRODUCTION presence of non-native plants. Recently, however, popula- Most botanists and ecologists thought Alaska was immune tions of many non-native species appear to be expanding to the invasion of non-native plants the rest of the United and most troubling, a number of species are spreading into States had experienced, and continue to experience, given natural habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Occurrence of Nine Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids in Senecio Vulgaris L
    plants Article Occurrence of Nine Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids in Senecio vulgaris L. Depending on Developmental Stage and Season Jens Flade 1,2,3 , Heidrun Beschow 1, Monika Wensch-Dorendorf 4, Andreas Plescher 2 and Wim Wätjen 3,* 1 Plant Nutrition, Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Betty-Heimann-Strasse 3, 06120 Halle/Saale, Germany; [email protected] (J.F.); [email protected] (H.B.) 2 PHARMAPLANT Arznei- und Gewürzpflanzen Forschungs- und Saatzucht GmbH, Am Westbahnhof 4, 06556 Artern, Germany; [email protected] 3 Biofunctionality of Secondary Plant Compounds, Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Weinbergweg 22, 06120 Halle/Saale, Germany 4 AG Biometrie und Agrarinformatik, Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Karl-Freiherr-von-Fritsch-Strasse 4, 06120 Halle/Saale, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-345-5522380 Received: 16 January 2019; Accepted: 19 February 2019; Published: 5 March 2019 Abstract: The contamination of phytopharmaceuticals and herbal teas with toxic plants is an increasing problem. Senecio vulgaris L. is a particularly noxious weed in agricultural and horticultural crops due to its content of toxic pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PAs). Since some of these compounds are carcinogenic, the distribution of this plant should be monitored. The amount of PAs in S. vulgaris is affected by various factors. Therefore, we investigated the occurrence of PAs depending on the developmental stage and season. A systematic study using field-plot experiments (four seasons, five developmental stages of the plants: S1 to S5) was performed and the PA concentration was determined via LC-MS/MS analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying and Managing Common Groundsel (Senecio Vulgaris L.) In
    MSU Extension Bulletin E3440 Identifying and managing common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.) in nurseries and greenhouses Debalina Saha and Carolyn Fitzgibbon Michigan State University Department of Horticulture Debalina Saha, MSU Horticulture Photo 1. Common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) growing along the edges of walkway inside a greenhouse. Common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) is one of the most common and problematic broadleaf Debalina Saha, MSU Horticulture weeds in nurseries and greenhouses. It belongs Photo 2. Erect and branched growth habit of common to the Asteraceae family, which also includes groundsel (Senecio vulgaris). dandelion, thistles and sunflower. It is classified identify and manage common groundsel in their as a winter annual because the seeds germinate nurseries and greenhouse operations. in late fall through early spring. Sometimes common groundsel is considered a summer annual since it has the capacity to germinate Biology of common groundsel under shady conditions in summer or fall. In addition to its general weediness, common HABITAT groundsel can be toxic to cattle, swine and Common groundsel can be found growing in horses if ingested. The toxicity is due to pyr- gardens, lawns, nursery plots, inside greenhous- rolizidine alkaloids, which can cause chronic es (under benches and on edges of walkways) liver damage to these animals (Smith-Fiola and (Photo 1), edges of yards, mulched beds around Gill, 2014; Uva et al., 1997). shrubs, fields, areas along railroads, roadsides The success of this weed lies with its ability to and waste areas. It is common in highly dis- produce enormous amount of seeds. Seed turbed areas where ground vegetation is low development starts early in its life cycle and and scant (Illinois wildflowers, 2020).
    [Show full text]
  • Tansy Ragwort
    United States Department of Agriculture NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Invasive Species Technical Note No. MT-24 June 2009 Ecology and Management of Tansy Ragwort (Senecio jacobaea L.) By Jim Jacobs, Invasive Species Specialist and Plant Materials Specialist NRCS, Bozeman, Montana Sharlene Sing, Research Entomologist USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Bozeman, Montana Figure 1. A tansy ragwort infested pasture. Photo by Eric Coombs, Oregon Department of Agriculture, available from Bugwood.org Abstract Tansy ragwort, a member of the Asteraceae taxonomic family, is a large biennial or short-lived perennial herb native to and widespread throughout Europe and Asia. Stems can grow to a height of 5.5 feet (1.75 meters), with the lower half simple and the upper half many-branched at the inflorescence. Reproductive stems produce up to 2,500 bright golden-yellow flowers. Capitula (flowerheads) arranged in 20-60 flat-topped, dense corymbs per plant are composed of ray and disc florets; both produce achenes containing a single seed. Rosettes formed of distinctive pinnately-lobed leaves attain a diameter of up to 1.5 feet (0.5 meter). First reported in Montana in 1979 in Mineral County, tansy ragwort has since spread into Flathead, Lincoln, and Sanders Counties. Soils with medium to light textures in areas receiving sufficient rainfall (34 inches or 860 millimeters/year) readily support populations of tansy ragwort. This species is a troublesome weed in decadent pastures, waste areas, clear-cuts and along roadsides. Tansy ragwort produces pyrrolizidine alkaloids - these can be lethal if ingested by cattle, horses and deer, but are less toxic to sheep and goats.
    [Show full text]
  • NON-NATIVE PLANT SPECIES INVENTORY of SOUTHEAST ALASKA: JUNEAU and HAINES
    NON-NATIVE PLANT SPECIES INVENTORY of SOUTHEAST ALASKA: JUNEAU and HAINES SUMMARY OF 2007 SURVEY FINDINGS December 2007 Final Report for USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry Katie Arhangelsky Turnstone Environmental Consultants, Inc. Portland, Oregon This report has been revised by the USFS from it's original submittal from the contractor United States State and Forest Service Department of Private Alaska Region Agriculture Forestry R10-TP-145 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................3 2. METHODS ........................................................................................................5 3. RESULTS .........................................................................................................8 3.1 SPECIES DIVERSITY................................................................................................. 8 Haines...................................................................................................................... 8 Juneau ..................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 CANOPY COVER .................................................................................................... 10 3.3 AGGRESSIVENESS ................................................................................................. 11 4. DISCUSSION..................................................................................................12 4.1 OVERVIEW
    [Show full text]